NOCTORIAL — TWO PAYOUT DENIALS, ACCOUNT CLOSED, NO OBJECTIVE RULE VIOLATION IDENTIFIED
I have been trying to pass funded account challenges with Noctorial for over two years. After significant time, effort and money invested, I finally passed my first 50K challenge — and that is when the nightmare began. I have suffered two payout denials and the definitive closure of my funded account, in both cases without any concrete violation of the platform's publicly published rules being identified.
--- FIRST CASE ---
After generating a 7.9% profit across 152 trades with a 74% win rate, I requested a withdrawal of ~3,161€. Noctorial denied it citing News Trading violations for two trades — 1.3% of the total — linked to the EIA Crude Oil Reserves event. This event was not marked as high impact on Forex Factory or on Noctorial's official Telegram channel. In fact, in an official Noctorial webinar, their own trainer used Forex Factory as the reference tool for checking news.
Noctorial's own published rules state that news-related trades result in partial exclusion of those specific trades — not total invalidation of the withdrawal. After formally disputing this with documentation and third-party mediation, they resolved the case with a 50% partial payment plus a full challenge fee refund. I accepted and moved forward.
--- SECOND CASE — Definitive account closure ---
Funded account #69555. Full cycle of 177 trades, 65% win rate, stop-loss on 100% of trades, consistent and stable lot sizing, no extreme drawdown, no trades during news windows, no risk management incidents whatsoever. I requested a payout of $1,697.95.
Noctorial denied the payout and closed the account permanently, citing:
— "Gambling behavior"
— "Threshold abuse" (operating near the 60-second minimum)
— "Absolute directional concentration" (100% long positions on NVDA and TSLA)
Their exact communication stated: "the combination of these factors generated an operational profile that our team considered incompatible with the standards of sustainability and replicability required within Noctorial's funded capital model. For this reason, the withdrawal request could not be approved in its entirety and the definitive closure of account #69555 will proceed."
The core issue: none of these three concepts appears as a defined invalidation criterion in the platform's publicly available rules. Their own help page under "Payments — how and when you get paid" explicitly lists the only reasons that can block a withdrawal. My trading does not fall under any of them.
When I formally requested the exact contractual clause supporting the denial, they cited sections 8.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the contract. After reading the full contract:
— 8.1 covers intellectual property rights over the services. Completely unrelated to benefit validation.
— 9.2 limits Noctorial's liability towards the client. Does not grant authority to invalidate earned benefits.
— 9.3 allows modification of service elements. Also unrelated.
None of the three cited clauses explicitly authorizes Noctorial to invalidate benefits based on "replicability" or "sustainability" criteria.
In their own written response, Noctorial acknowledged that my trades respected the 60-second minimum, that I used stop-loss consistently, and that I maintained a stable position size. Despite this, they upheld the full denial and proceeded with the permanent account closure.
A strategy with 177 trades, 65% win rate, consistent risk management and all operational parameters respected does not fit any reasonable definition of "gambling". Noctorial's own published definition of gambling describes behaviors such as trading without stop-loss, increasing lot size after losses, or taking uncontrolled risks — the exact opposite of what my trading metrics show.
--- PATTERN ---
In both cases, the denial occurred when the payout amount was significant. In both cases, the arguments used were not defined with objective, measurable criteria in the previously published rules. In the second case, the account was permanently closed without any objectively demonstrated rule violation.
Should this matter not be resolved professionally and in accordance with their own published rules, I will be taking the appropriate formal steps available to EU consumers, including the Online Dispute Resolution platform referenced in Noctorial's own contract (clause 14.4).
I share my experience so that other traders can make an informed decision before investing their time and money in this program.
If anyone has experienced similar denials from Noctorial — particularly involving "replicability", "directional concentration" or "gambling" claims without an objective rule violation — I would strongly encourage you to share your experience.
I have been trying to pass funded account challenges with Noctorial for over two years. After significant time, effort and money invested, I finally passed my first 50K challenge — and that is when the nightmare began. I have suffered two payout denials and the definitive closure of my funded account, in both cases without any concrete violation of the platform's publicly published rules being identified.
--- FIRST CASE ---
After generating a 7.9% profit across 152 trades with a 74% win rate, I requested a withdrawal of ~3,161€. Noctorial denied it citing News Trading violations for two trades — 1.3% of the total — linked to the EIA Crude Oil Reserves event. This event was not marked as high impact on Forex Factory or on Noctorial's official Telegram channel. In fact, in an official Noctorial webinar, their own trainer used Forex Factory as the reference tool for checking news.
Noctorial's own published rules state that news-related trades result in partial exclusion of those specific trades — not total invalidation of the withdrawal. After formally disputing this with documentation and third-party mediation, they resolved the case with a 50% partial payment plus a full challenge fee refund. I accepted and moved forward.
--- SECOND CASE — Definitive account closure ---
Funded account #69555. Full cycle of 177 trades, 65% win rate, stop-loss on 100% of trades, consistent and stable lot sizing, no extreme drawdown, no trades during news windows, no risk management incidents whatsoever. I requested a payout of $1,697.95.
Noctorial denied the payout and closed the account permanently, citing:
— "Gambling behavior"
— "Threshold abuse" (operating near the 60-second minimum)
— "Absolute directional concentration" (100% long positions on NVDA and TSLA)
Their exact communication stated: "the combination of these factors generated an operational profile that our team considered incompatible with the standards of sustainability and replicability required within Noctorial's funded capital model. For this reason, the withdrawal request could not be approved in its entirety and the definitive closure of account #69555 will proceed."
The core issue: none of these three concepts appears as a defined invalidation criterion in the platform's publicly available rules. Their own help page under "Payments — how and when you get paid" explicitly lists the only reasons that can block a withdrawal. My trading does not fall under any of them.
When I formally requested the exact contractual clause supporting the denial, they cited sections 8.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the contract. After reading the full contract:
— 8.1 covers intellectual property rights over the services. Completely unrelated to benefit validation.
— 9.2 limits Noctorial's liability towards the client. Does not grant authority to invalidate earned benefits.
— 9.3 allows modification of service elements. Also unrelated.
None of the three cited clauses explicitly authorizes Noctorial to invalidate benefits based on "replicability" or "sustainability" criteria.
In their own written response, Noctorial acknowledged that my trades respected the 60-second minimum, that I used stop-loss consistently, and that I maintained a stable position size. Despite this, they upheld the full denial and proceeded with the permanent account closure.
A strategy with 177 trades, 65% win rate, consistent risk management and all operational parameters respected does not fit any reasonable definition of "gambling". Noctorial's own published definition of gambling describes behaviors such as trading without stop-loss, increasing lot size after losses, or taking uncontrolled risks — the exact opposite of what my trading metrics show.
--- PATTERN ---
In both cases, the denial occurred when the payout amount was significant. In both cases, the arguments used were not defined with objective, measurable criteria in the previously published rules. In the second case, the account was permanently closed without any objectively demonstrated rule violation.
Should this matter not be resolved professionally and in accordance with their own published rules, I will be taking the appropriate formal steps available to EU consumers, including the Online Dispute Resolution platform referenced in Noctorial's own contract (clause 14.4).
I share my experience so that other traders can make an informed decision before investing their time and money in this program.
If anyone has experienced similar denials from Noctorial — particularly involving "replicability", "directional concentration" or "gambling" claims without an objective rule violation — I would strongly encourage you to share your experience.
